BOOK BANNING IS A O.K.....now.
You know, I can't even keep up with the attacks on the Constitution anymore. Another day, another revelation like this, from Jonah Goldberg:
I gotta hand it to him, he sure isn't wasting a good crisis. Very few can keep up, even IF they have the time and energy to do it. Its gonna be one HELL of a hangover when we're all done drinkin all that purple kool-aid-lookin chope!
Several justices asked the deputy solicitor general, Malcolm Stewart, if there would be any constitutional reason why the ban on documentaries and ads couldn't be extended to books carrying similar messages. Stewart, speaking for a president who once taught constitutional law, said Congress can ban books "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy" for a candidate and was supported, even slightly, with corporate money. Such advocacy, Stewart conceded, could amount to negatively mentioning a politician just once in a 500-page book put out by a mainstream publisher.
Virtually every newspaper in America is owned by a corporation; does that mean they can't endorse candidates anymore? To even ask such a question as if it were reasonable shows how close to the heart of our democracy the poison has reached.
...when the Obama administration approves the constitutionality of banning politically relevant books before the Supreme Court, where's the outrage? Yes, there are some sober, responsible editorials. But the soapboxes stand unmanned by the self-appointed paragons of freedom.